I'm glad Marta is retiring. Hopefully in the future it'll mean whoever earns the right to compete gets to compete.

Simone Biles and Aly Raisman have been the 2 best all around gymnasts in 2016, Gabby Douglas and Madison Kocian are the 2 best uneven bars gymnasts on the team, so who in the uneven bars lineup didn't earn their spot in the line up. Aly earn her all-around spot by being the 2nd best all around gymnast for almost all of 2016 (going into Rio), Gabby earned her all-around spot because she is better on uneven bars than Laurie Hernandez and better on the other 3 events than Madison Kocian, and Simone earned her spot by being the best all-around gymnast in the world.

He's referring to the fact that they have an Olympic Trials for the gymnasts, but then do not select based on the results of that event. If they want the coach to have the final decision in selecting the participants, they should just cancel the Olympic Trials. To continue to get the money that event raises, it can be changed it to an exhibition.

The only athlete who automatically qualifies for the Olympic team based on performance at the Olympic trials is the winner of the all-around. This was Simone Biles.

The other four members of the Olympic team, and the three alternates, are then selected by the collective judgment of the three-person Women's Selection Committee, which is composed of: Márta Károlyi, women’s national team coordinator; Tatiana Perskaia, brevet judge; and Terin Humphrey, athlete representative. The five Olympic team members and three alternates selected by the WSC must then be approved by the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Board of Directors.

Veterans Gabby Douglas and Aly Raisman, both double gold medalists in the 2012 Olympics, were the other two athletes selected by the WSC for the team.

Other than the one automatic selection for the team, the WSC presumably uses the Olympic trials as the final piece of empirical data to make their selections of the other seven members and alternates -- in the context of their hundreds of hours of observations of the candidates in years of training sessions, pre-Olympic competitions and evaluations from the athletes' personal coaches. This is similar to how USAB selects basketball players for national teams after trials.

I'm glad Marta is retiring. Hopefully in the future it'll mean whoever earns the right to compete gets to compete.

Simone Biles and Aly Raisman have been the 2 best all around gymnasts in 2016, Gabby Douglas and Madison Kocian are the 2 best uneven bars gymnasts on the team, so who in the uneven bars lineup didn't earn their spot in the line up. Aly earn her all-around spot by being the 2nd best all around gymnast for almost all of 2016 (going into Rio), Gabby earned her all-around spot because she is better on uneven bars than Laurie Hernandez and better on the other 3 events than Madison Kocian, and Simone earned her spot by being the best all-around gymnast in the world.

He's referring to the fact that they have an Olympic Trials for the gymnasts, but then do not select based on the results of that event. If they want the coach to have the final decision in selecting the participants, they should just cancel the Olympic Trials. To continue to get the money that event raises, it can be changed it to an exhibition.

The only athlete who automatically qualifies for the Olympic team based on performance at the Olympic trials is the winner of the all-around. This was Simone Biles.

The other four members of the Olympic team, and the three alternates, are then selected by the collective judgment of the three-person Women's Selection Committee, which is composed of: Márta Károlyi, women’s national team coordinator; Tatiana Perskaia, brevet judge; and Terin Humphrey, athlete representative. The five Olympic team members and three alternates selected by the WSC must then be approved by the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Board of Directors.

Veterans Gabby Douglas and Aly Raisman, both double gold medalists in the 2012 Olympics, were the other two athletes selected by the WSC for the team.

Other than the one automatic selection for the team, the WSC presumably uses the Olympic trials as the final piece of empirical data to make their selections of the other seven members and alternates -- in the context of their hundreds of hours of observations of the candidates in years of training sessions, pre-Olympic competitions and evaluations from the athletes' personal coaches. This is similar to how USAB selects basketball players for national teams after trials.

I don't think it's typical for an "Olympic Trials" in other sports to just be "another data point". That is, the results are final. But you raise another option - USA Gymnastics could do it like USAB and the other team sports are forced to do - just make selections based on what they saw in practices - and not hold a trials. Although as I mentioned, they probably make money from the trials and don't want to forgo that. So I would hold it, but call it an exhibition - "last chance to see our team before they compete in the Olympics".

I'm glad Marta is retiring. Hopefully in the future it'll mean whoever earns the right to compete gets to compete.

Simone Biles and Aly Raisman have been the 2 best all around gymnasts in 2016, Gabby Douglas and Madison Kocian are the 2 best uneven bars gymnasts on the team, so who in the uneven bars lineup didn't earn their spot in the line up. Aly earn her all-around spot by being the 2nd best all around gymnast for almost all of 2016 (going into Rio), Gabby earned her all-around spot because she is better on uneven bars than Laurie Hernandez and better on the other 3 events than Madison Kocian, and Simone earned her spot by being the best all-around gymnast in the world.

He's referring to the fact that they have an Olympic Trials for the gymnasts, but then do not select based on the results of that event. If they want the coach to have the final decision in selecting the participants, they should just cancel the Olympic Trials. To continue to get the money that event raises, it can be changed it to an exhibition.

The only athlete who automatically qualifies for the Olympic team based on performance at the Olympic trials is the winner of the all-around. This was Simone Biles.

The other four members of the Olympic team, and the three alternates, are then selected by the collective judgment of the three-person Women's Selection Committee, which is composed of: Márta Károlyi, women’s national team coordinator; Tatiana Perskaia, brevet judge; and Terin Humphrey, athlete representative. The five Olympic team members and three alternates selected by the WSC must then be approved by the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Board of Directors.

Veterans Gabby Douglas and Aly Raisman, both double gold medalists in the 2012 Olympics, were the other two athletes selected by the WSC for the team.

Other than the one automatic selection for the team, the WSC presumably uses the Olympic trials as the final piece of empirical data to make their selections of the other seven members and alternates -- in the context of their hundreds of hours of observations of the candidates in years of training sessions, pre-Olympic competitions and evaluations from the athletes' personal coaches. This is similar to how USAB selects basketball players for national teams after trials.

I don't think it's typical for an "Olympic Trials" in other sports to just be "another data point". That is, the results are final. But you raise another option - USA Gymnastics could do it like USAB and the other team sports are forced to do - just make selections based on what they saw in practices - and not hold a trials. Although as I mentioned, they probably make money from the trials and don't want to forgo that. So I would hold it, but call it an exhibition - "last chance to see our team before they compete in the Olympics".

I really don't understand the point you and Shades are trying to make -- not in the context of a team sport, and especially not in one where the "scores" in every event are subjectively decided by changing panels of judges. In such subjective team sports, the only rational way to select the athletes is for the coaches (or selection committee) to exercise their subjective judgment to get an optimum balance of generalist skills and specialist skills as well as a mix of experience and youth.

It would be nutty in such a sport to base the selection of five athletes robotically on who wins one event in a few seconds on one day in May. How long does an event last? 90 seconds for floor exercise, perhaps 45 seconds for bars and beam, and a mere five seconds for vault. The greatest gymnast in the multiverse could fall off an apparatus and get a lousy score in one single event, and that universe-class gymnast would not make the USA Olympic team under the robot theory of Olympic trials.

Therefore, it boggles my mind to suggest that the USA should robotically base its selection of five team gymnasts on those few seconds in May -- while ignoring the athletes' records in years of international competitions, sometimes including prior Olympics, and in hundreds of hours of personal observations by the Selection Committee in the training sessions at the The Ranch. (Watch the video of the Karolyi ranch I linked above.)

A collection of individual sports like track & field is completely different. These are all individual events (other than a few relays), having hundreds of candidates for dozens of positions, and the scores are all objectively measured by time or distance.

Nor do I understand a preference for the noun "exhibition" rather than "trial". An exhibition is something done solely as a public display for entertainment. A trial is a test of performance or suitability for something, and that is what the gymnastic Olympic trials are. They are a test but not the only test, other than for the first place winner of the all-around.

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Unless of course you prefer favoritism, cronyism, and politics.

I disagree or don't understand.

By far, the most important gymnastic event is the team competition. To win that, the team must be composed of a mix of generalist and specialist skills, and of youth and experience, so the coaches, in their subjective judgment, can juggle different athletes among the different apparatuses as necessary to win the team competition.

The scoring of every gymnastic performance is subjective, by judges, and the subjective scoring is so close that differences are typically measured down to the thousandth of a point. The selection of "who is best for the team" is obviously also a subjective decision, and the Selection Committee is entitled to make different subjective decisions on relative performance than the judges of individual events at the trials or any other competition.

I don't know the selection processes for all ~47 different Olympic sports in the USA; I assume they all have differences. I'm just reporting the current process for the USA gymnastic team. It's not my opinion, but fact.

Track and other sports likely have other processes and exceptions to those processes. For a Jamaican example, Usain Bolt pulled out of the Olympic trials due to injury but was put on the 100, 200 and 4x100 teams anyway. Elaine Thompson (who just won the Olympic gold in the 100) pulled out of the Jamaican trials in the 200, but is now scheduled to run in that race. Such flexibility makes sense to me.

I also fail to see any politics, cronyism or favoritism in the USA gymnastic process. Where are these allegations coming from, and what's the evidence for such charges? All the gymnastic candidates are evaluated for weeks at the Károlyi ranch, which is the Olympic training center, have long competition histories, and winning medals is surely Márta Károlyi's only objective. That objective and the selection system has worked brilliantly under her direction this century, and the USA women's team is now the unchallenged world power. Finally, as I have linked, all the winners of the individual apparatus events at the 2016 Olympic trials in May -- Biles, Kocian and Hernandez -- were in fact selected for the 2016 Olympic team.

What's the beef?

By the way, Valeri Liukin is likely to take over the training at the Károlyi ranch, and Márta's position, after she retires to feeding chickens and camels with Béla. (Gotta watch the documentary.)

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Unless of course you prefer favoritism, cronyism, and politics.

Um dude they have a gymnastics TEAM competition!

Yeah and they report which country is leading in medals too. What's your point?

Adding together scores of individual performances doesn't make it a team performance.

There's no interaction among gymnastic team members during performances.

It's not even like a relay where there's some interaction on handoffs. The performances are entirely individual.

It's as if they added together the total height of each country's pole vaulters' best vault and awarded a team pole vault medal. Wouldn't change the individual nature of the sport.

For a Jamaican example, Usain Bolt pulled out of the Olympic trials due to injury but was put on the 100, 200 and 4x100 teams anyway. Elaine Thompson (who just won the Olympic gold in the 100) pulled out of the Jamaican trials in the 200, but is now scheduled to run in that race. Such flexibility makes sense to me.

So now your argument is that because the Jamaicans have no reluctance about rigging their selections to make sure their national heroes get on the team that the United States should follow the Jamaican lead and throw fair competition out the window?

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Unless of course you prefer favoritism, cronyism, and politics.

A team that competes in four different events they take the ones that will help them ifs strategy!

Um dude they have a gymnastics TEAM competition!

Yeah and they report which country is leading in medals too. What's your point?

Adding together scores of individual performances doesn't make it a team performance.

There's no interaction among gymnastic team members during performances.

It's not even like a relay where there's some interaction on handoffs. The performances are entirely individual.

It's as if they added together the total height of each country's pole vaulters' best vault and awarded a team pole vault medal. Wouldn't change the individual nature of the sport.

You don't get it, they pick the team members based on who will help them the most in the four different events in the TEAM competition since only three scores count in the finals and gymnasts have weak and strong events.
Madison Kocian only made it cause of her bars routine she didn't even finish top 8 at the trials.
Guess if there was no TEAM gymnasics competition she would have only made the olympics to compete for uneven bars but gymnastics doesn't work the way track and field or swimming does!!

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Unless of course you prefer favoritism, cronyism, and politics.

Um dude they have a gymnastics TEAM competition!

They don't compete as a team. They compete individually and scores are added up. It is still an individual sport, even if they are adding up scores for individuals from the same country.

For a Jamaican example, Usain Bolt pulled out of the Olympic trials due to injury but was put on the 100, 200 and 4x100 teams anyway. Elaine Thompson (who just won the Olympic gold in the 100) pulled out of the Jamaican trials in the 200, but is now scheduled to run in that race. Such flexibility makes sense to me.

So now your argument is that because the Jamaicans have no reluctance about rigging their selections to make sure their national heroes get on the team that the United States should follow the Jamaican lead and throw fair competition out the window?

OK, no point in continuing this.

USA Gymnastics did that in 1996 for Shannon Miller and Dominique Moceanu, they petitioned onto the team because of an injury, and a gymnast did that in 1992 as well.

That doesn't explain at all why Douglas and Raisman were given the opportunity to compete for the all round over Hernandez.

I explained it earlier in this thread. Just becuase

GEF34 wrote:

Simone Biles and Aly Raisman have been the 2 best all around gymnasts in 2016, Gabby Douglas and Madison Kocian are the 2 best uneven bars gymnasts on the team, so who in the uneven bars lineup didn't earn their spot in the line up. Aly earn her all-around spot by being the 2nd best all around gymnast for almost all of 2016 (going into Rio), Gabby earned her all-around spot because she is better on uneven bars than Laurie Hernandez and better on the other 3 events than Madison Kocian, and Simone earned her spot by being the best all-around gymnast in the world.

But any way you look at it Gabby Douglas was always going to do all-around because she is better than Madison Kocian on the other 3 events, so whether it was Laurie Hernandez or Aly Raisman one was not going to do all-around because Gabby is better on bars, so the US Committee went with the person who has been the 2nd best all-around gymnast in 2016 not just at the Olympic Trials.

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Unless of course you prefer favoritism, cronyism, and politics.

Um dude they have a gymnastics TEAM competition!

They don't compete as a team. They compete individually and scores are added up. It is still an individual sport, even if they are adding up scores for individuals from the same country.

Unless I'm missing something even though they don't directly compete at the same time the point is at the end of the competition to have the most points. If you take out Madison Kocian and Gabby Douglas because they were not one of the top 5 gymnasts at Trials and replace them with MyKayla Skinner and Ragan Smith, the team would score significantly lower on bars, possibly vault and beam as well. So that could mean they don't win the gold, which is what USA Gymnastics used to do, they would take the top 6 or 7 in the all-around (depending on the year) after factoring in age requirements and petitions (as referenced before) and in all that time they won 3 team medals at the World Championships, and not once was it gold and and 4 teams medals at the Olympics with only one gold. So they have developed a system where they put up the best team based on the results over the year to give them the best opportunity to win gold and put the gymnasts in the best position to win individually. I agree it's not fair all of the time to certain gymnasts, but it's not like they are playing favoritism and picking only gymnasts the committee likes, because if that were the case you would not be seeing some of the gymnast in Rio that you are seeing and that includes the gymnasts named as alternates.

I'm glad Marta is retiring. Hopefully in the future it'll mean whoever earns the right to compete gets to compete.

Simone Biles and Aly Raisman have been the 2 best all around gymnasts in 2016, Gabby Douglas and Madison Kocian are the 2 best uneven bars gymnasts on the team, so who in the uneven bars lineup didn't earn their spot in the line up. Aly earn her all-around spot by being the 2nd best all around gymnast for almost all of 2016 (going into Rio), Gabby earned her all-around spot because she is better on uneven bars than Laurie Hernandez and better on the other 3 events than Madison Kocian, and Simone earned her spot by being the best all-around gymnast in the world.

He's referring to the fact that they have an Olympic Trials for the gymnasts, but then do not select based on the results of that event. If they want the coach to have the final decision in selecting the participants, they should just cancel the Olympic Trials. To continue to get the money that event raises, it can be changed it to an exhibition.

The only athlete who automatically qualifies for the Olympic team based on performance at the Olympic trials is the winner of the all-around. This was Simone Biles.

The other four members of the Olympic team, and the three alternates, are then selected by the collective judgment of the three-person Women's Selection Committee, which is composed of: Márta Károlyi, women’s national team coordinator; Tatiana Perskaia, brevet judge; and Terin Humphrey, athlete representative. The five Olympic team members and three alternates selected by the WSC must then be approved by the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Board of Directors.

Veterans Gabby Douglas and Aly Raisman, both double gold medalists in the 2012 Olympics, were the other two athletes selected by the WSC for the team.

Other than the one automatic selection for the team, the WSC presumably uses the Olympic trials as the final piece of empirical data to make their selections of the other seven members and alternates -- in the context of their hundreds of hours of observations of the candidates in years of training sessions, pre-Olympic competitions and evaluations from the athletes' personal coaches. This is similar to how USAB selects basketball players for national teams after trials.

I don't think it's typical for an "Olympic Trials" in other sports to just be "another data point". That is, the results are final. But you raise another option - USA Gymnastics could do it like USAB and the other team sports are forced to do - just make selections based on what they saw in practices - and not hold a trials. Although as I mentioned, they probably make money from the trials and don't want to forgo that. So I would hold it, but call it an exhibition - "last chance to see our team before they compete in the Olympics".

USA Swimming and USA Track and Field do the same thing for their relay teams, they name people to the Olympic team as relay members, but that doesn't mean they are automatically running or swimming in the relay, anyone on the USA team (or their countries team) can swim/run in the relays, that's why Michael Phelps doesn't always compete in the relay events he swims, or Allyson Felix doesn't always run in the relay events she runs, for a few years she was on the 4x400 relay team without every running in the 400m at Olympic Trials.

The difference is with gymnastics the USA is so dominate now and gymnastics is such a popular sport that everyone seems to care for the Olympics, but they don't realize USA gymnastics has been doing this since 2001 and by having a committee select the team based on everything instead of one competition USA Gymnastics is having the best results in USA Gymnastics history. If USA Gymnastics had stuck to the old system and were having the same results as before how many people would be calling for them to change the system and to choose gymnasts that put the team in the best position to succeed than just going with top all-around gymnasts based on results from one competition. From 1997-1999 when USA Gymnastics was using that system and have 0 medals in 2 World Championships many people in the gymnastics community were calling for a system change because coming of the team gold in Atlanta along with 3 individual medals to winning 0, and not even coming close to a medal was a cause for alarm in USA Gymnastics. They tried for a combo system in 2000, but because they implemented to late it didn't work, and they went with the current system in 2001 and since then USA Gymnastics has turned into what it is today.

I don't understand your position or distinction at all. It's very unconvincing.

Why should a guy who has won every US event for two years in the 110 hurdles get left off the team because he had a bad start or tripped on a hurdle in the trials final, but a gymnast who got clearly whipped in the trials gets a "that's OK, we're still taking you instead of the girl who kicked your ass".

Gymnastics is entirely an individual event. There's no team chemistry or fit issue. They don't compete together. There's no need for "subjectivity".

Why shouldn't the top two in the trials get the two spots? It's really the only fair way.

Unless of course you prefer favoritism, cronyism, and politics.

So based on your theory which results should they go by, and who should be on the team. If gymnast A scores 14.3 on bars but finishes #4 in the all-around and another gymnast B scored 15.9, won bars and finished #8 in the all-around, which one should go because based on your scenario above gymnast A that got their a** kicked on bars is going instead of the winner or gymnast B who go her a** kicked in the all-around is going instead of the 4th place finisher.

I really don't understand the point you and Shades are trying to make -- not in the context of a team sport, and especially not in one where the "scores" in every event are subjectively decided by changing panels of judges. In such subjective team sports, the only rational way to select the athletes is for the coaches (or selection committee) to exercise their subjective judgment to get an optimum balance of generalist skills and specialist skills as well as a mix of experience and youth.

I don't see that the "only rational way" to select would be a small group - of coaches - rather than averaging the judgement of many - judges - throughout the year. Judges' opinions would be a better opinion to use in a sport that is scored by those very same people, than the opinion of a coach. And the more opinions you include, the more you negate bias.

Quote:

It would be nutty in such a sport to base the selection of five athletes robotically on who wins one event in a few seconds on one day in May. How long does an event last? 90 seconds for floor exercise, perhaps 45 seconds for bars and beam, and a mere five seconds for vault. The greatest gymnast in the multiverse could fall off an apparatus and get a lousy score in one single event, and that universe-class gymnast would not make the USA Olympic team under the robot theory of Olympic trials.

As ArtBest23 pointed out, that's what you normally get when you have a "trials". In the case of figure skating - a similar individual "judged" sport ('looking at what took place in 2014) - they don't hold a trials. The US Championships are held as normal and that event becomes "another data point" that some group takes into consideration when selecting Olympic participants.

Quote:

Therefore, it boggles my mind to suggest that the USA should robotically base its selection of five team gymnasts on those few seconds in May -- while ignoring the athletes' records in years of international competitions, sometimes including prior Olympics, and in hundreds of hours of personal observations by the Selection Committee in the training sessions at the The Ranch. (Watch the video of the Karolyi ranch I linked above.)

If you don't like the idea of a trials, just do a judges score average for the year. I think judges' opinions of what they see in competition are better than coaches opinions of what they see in practice.

Quote:

A collection of individual sports like track & field is completely different. These are all individual events (other than a few relays), having hundreds of candidates for dozens of positions, and the scores are all objectively measured by time or distance.

I think an argument can be made that it would be fairer to eliminate the trials there as well, with an average of scores - or finishes - used throughout the year. But athletes get injured and miss meets and take a while to be full strength, which is why they probably go to a trials - to see who is best at as close a date to the event they are "trying out for" as possible.

Quote:

Nor do I understand a preference for the noun "exhibition" rather than "trial". An exhibition is something done solely as a public display for entertainment. A trial is a test of performance or suitability for something, and that is what the gymnastic Olympic trials are. They are a test but not the only test, other than for the first place winner of the all-around.

Call it a "meet" or do like skating does - just have your normal national championships.

On another note has anyone noticed that on NBC's stream (not sure about the tv version) the little name graphic when Laurie Hernandez competes says Lauren Hernandez. It bugs me every time I see it, that's not her name.

On another note has anyone noticed that on NBC's stream (not sure about the tv version) the little name graphic when Laurie Hernandez competes says Lauren Hernandez. It bugs me every time I see it, that's not her name.

Lauren is the name she was born with. She probably prefers Laurie because it's more youthful, like she is.

Is it Gabby Douglas? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Gabrielle?
Is it Aly Raisman? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Alexandra? I bet you would.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

On another note has anyone noticed that on NBC's stream (not sure about the tv version) the little name graphic when Laurie Hernandez competes says Lauren Hernandez. It bugs me every time I see it, that's not her name.

Lauren is the name she was born with. She probably prefers Laurie because it's more youthful, like she is.

Is it Gabby Douglas? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Gabrielle?
Is it Aly Raisman? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Alexandra? I bet you would.

Seems like you just made his point. They don't write Alexandra or Gabrielle, but they write Lauren.

On another note has anyone noticed that on NBC's stream (not sure about the tv version) the little name graphic when Laurie Hernandez competes says Lauren Hernandez. It bugs me every time I see it, that's not her name.

Lauren is the name she was born with. She probably prefers Laurie because it's more youthful, like she is.

Is it Gabby Douglas? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Gabrielle?
Is it Aly Raisman? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Alexandra? I bet you would.

Seems like you just made his point. They don't write Alexandra or Gabrielle, but they write Lauren.

What? Her point was they should stop using "Lauren" because it's not her name. It is her name. Maybe her nickname isn't as established as the others, but you should never be surprised or bothered if anyone uses a proper name over a nickname.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

I'm a big fan of Aly Raisman so for the second straight Olympiad, she's been magnificent!

Honestly, if Simone wasn't there, I think Aly would have walked away with a huge chunk of medals. (Gold Team, Gold All Around, at least a medal on beam, Gold Floor..maybe a medal on a vault.) She was really at her peak this olympics, IMO.

_________________TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.

On another note has anyone noticed that on NBC's stream (not sure about the tv version) the little name graphic when Laurie Hernandez competes says Lauren Hernandez. It bugs me every time I see it, that's not her name.

Lauren is the name she was born with. She probably prefers Laurie because it's more youthful, like she is.

Is it Gabby Douglas? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Gabrielle?
Is it Aly Raisman? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Alexandra? I bet you would.

Actually it's I didn't know Laurie was not her given name, so now that I know, I don't have a problem with it at all. I thought it was a typo that was never fixed, that is why it bugged me.

I'm a big fan of Aly Raisman so for the second straight Olympiad, she's been magnificent!

Honestly, if Simone wasn't there, I think Aly would have walked away with a huge chunk of medals. (Gold Team, Gold All Around, at least a medal on beam, Gold Floor..maybe a medal on a vault.) She was really at her peak this olympics, IMO.

Aly Raisman only competes one vault so she isn't eligible for vault finals.

On another note has anyone noticed that on NBC's stream (not sure about the tv version) the little name graphic when Laurie Hernandez competes says Lauren Hernandez. It bugs me every time I see it, that's not her name.

Lauren is the name she was born with. She probably prefers Laurie because it's more youthful, like she is.

Is it Gabby Douglas? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Gabrielle?
Is it Aly Raisman? Would you be pissed off to see it written as Alexandra? I bet you would.

Seems like you just made his point. They don't write Alexandra or Gabrielle, but they write Lauren.

What? Her point was they should stop using "Lauren" because it's not her name. It is her name. Maybe her nickname isn't as established as the others, but you should never be surprised or bothered if anyone uses a proper name over a nickname.

First off I am a male not a female. And I don't have a problem nor am I bothered if an organization, announcer, media, coach or any other person refers to person by their given name, the problem is I thought her given name was Laurie and Lauren was a typo.